SANTA ANA, Calif. – Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer is pleased to announce the successful conclusion of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the use of custodial informants, an investigation which the federal government launched in 2016 under then-District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.
Upon being sworn in as the Orange County District Attorney in January 2019, Todd Spitzer immediately implemented significant and meaningful reforms to safeguard the criminal justice system and to protect against the errors of the prior administration.
In October of 2022, the DOJ released its report documenting findings from their investigation into the use of custodial informants by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office between 2007 and 2016.
For the duration of the DOJ investigation, District Attorney Spitzer has fully cooperated with our partners at the DOJ Civil Rights Division to proactively prevent those constitutional violations which occurred under the prior administration from being repeated, and to provide relief to those defendants whose constitutional rights had been violated.
The DOJ’s 2022 report recognized these efforts, highlighting that the “OCDA, in particular, has made a number of positive changes under its current leadership to its management structure, policies, training, supervision, and staffing that are intended to prevent the kinds of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment violations that led to our investigation.”
Throughout this multi-year investigation, District Attorney Spitzer repeatedly asked the DOJ for input on the numerous reforms he implemented, including the prohibition of utilizing a jailhouse informant without the express consent of the elected District Attorney, and asked for suggestions on additional reforms that the DOJ would like to have in place. Throughout the entirety of the DOJ investigation, the OCDA has continued to demonstrate its commitment to reform through painstaking case reviews, additional training, improved policies, enhanced processes, comprehensive audits, and significant investment in advanced digital resources.
After learning the California Attorney General had abandoned its probe into the OCDA and OCSD and while waiting for the DOJ to conclude its review, District Attorney Spitzer launched his own outside investigation into the informant issue. As a result, District Attorney Spitzer fired a senior assistant district attorney for failing to properly disclose informant information to the defense in a homicide case. Two other veteran homicide prosecutors resigned or retired while they were under investigation. The report ultimately concluded that those two prosecutors committed intentional negligence in connection with the prosecution of People v. Dekraai.
The termination of the Agreement with the DOJ represents an acknowledgment by the DOJ that the OCDA has not only achieved substantial compliance with the provisions of the Agreement but has also sustained that substantial compliance based on DOJ’s assessment.
“The violation of a single defendant’s constitutional rights calls into question the fairness of the entire criminal justice system,” said Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. “After nearly a decade of investigation by the Department of Justice, the “win at all costs mentality” chapter of the prior administration can finally be closed once and for all, and the residents of Orange County can have confidence that transparency has replaced the shroud of darkness under which the criminal justice system was allowed to operate under the prior District Attorney. The rule of law exists to protect the accused and the victimized, and the rights of one cannot and must not be sacrificed in favor of the other. The collective efforts we have made within the District Attorney’s Office to restore trust and accountability to a system which at times seemed irreparably damaged have forged a path forward which safeguards the criminal system and ensures the fair administration of justice for all.”
The Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) was a primary subject of the investigation and was found responsible for systematic constitutional violations over a decade. While the current administration emphasizes its role in reform, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 2022 report explicitly blamed the OCDA for its role in the “snitch scandal.”
Key findings regarding the OCDA’s responsibility include:
- Systemic Violations: The DOJ found “reasonable cause to believe” that the OCDA, alongside the Sheriff’s Department, engaged in a pattern of conduct that violated defendants’ Sixth Amendment (right to counsel) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process) rights between 2007 and 2016.
- Failure to Disclose Evidence: Prosecutors were specifically cited for failing to seek out and disclose exculpatory information regarding jailhouse informants to defense counsel, a fundamental legal obligation.
- “Failure of Leadership”: An independent panel in 2016 concluded that a “failure of leadership” under then-DA Tony Rackauckas was the root cause of the misconduct, citing an office culture that prioritized “winning at all costs.”
- Impact on Major Cases: The misconduct was so severe that in 2015, a judge disqualified the entire OCDA from the high-profile Scott Dekraai mass murder case, the first time in California history an entire DA’s office was recused from a capital trial.
- Personnel Accountability: Under current DA Todd Spitzer, internal investigations led to the firing of a senior assistant district attorney and the forced retirement or resignation of two veteran homicide prosecutors for their roles in the scandal.
As of late 2025, an analysis of court records and data from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office indicates that at least 57 criminal cases—including 35 homicides—unraveled due to the illegal use of jailhouse informants. In these cases, defendants saw their convictions overturned, charges dropped, or sentences dramatically reduced.
The following is a list of notable defendants who received relief because of the OCDA’s conduct:
Homicide Cases (Released or Sentences Reduced)
- Scott Dekraai: The gunman in the 2011 Seal Beach hair salon massacre (the worst mass murder in OC history) was spared the death penalty after a judge ruled he could not receive a fair trial due to systemic prosecutorial misconduct. He is serving eight life sentences instead.
- Isaac Palacios: Originally charged with two murders, he served 7 years and was released on probation after pleading to a single murder charge while others were dismissed.
- Guy Scott: After spending 41 years in prison for a 1980s murder, he was released in September 2025 after his conviction was reduced to manslaughter because prosecutors withheld evidence about a key informant’s lies.
- Paul Gentile Smith: Convicted of murder in 2010, his conviction was thrown out in 2021. As of late 2024, he was awaiting a new trial or possible dismissal after the lead prosecutor in his case (Ebrahim Baytieh) was fired for withholding evidence.
- Henry Rodriguez: Had his life sentence and murder conviction overturned in 2016 because prosecutors withheld records showing the informant in his case was a seasoned operative.
- Joel Avila: Originally charged with murder; he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was released after serving 6 years.
- Heriberto Calvillo: Initially sentenced to 22 years for manslaughter; his charge was dismissed, and he pleaded to robbery, serving only 6 years.
- Jose Canul: Pleaded guilty to murder but had death penalty enhancements dropped, receiving life in prison instead.
Serious Felony Cases
- Estavan Cardoso: Faced serious gang-related felony charges but was allowed to plead to a reduced charge and released with 4 years of time served because a key officer refused to testify for fear of incriminating himself regarding informant use.
- Luis Vega: Charges were entirely dismissed in 2010 after it was revealed he had been held for nearly two years while prosecutors withheld evidence of his innocence.
- Alvaro Sanchez: Instead of a life sentence for attempted murder, he was offered a plea deal of 16 years due to informant issues in the case.
In total, 16 murder defendants who were initially facing life terms received sentences of 12 years or less due to the fallout of the scandal.